Influence of new societal factors on neovascular age-related macular degeneration outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of unstudied societal factors for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) on functional outcomes after anti-VEGFs. METHODS: Charts of 94 nAMD patients treated in the Monticelli-Paradis Centre, Marseille, France, were reviewed. Phone interviews were conducted to assess societal factors, including transportation, living status, daily reading and social security scheme (SSS). Primary outcome was the impact of family support and disease burden on functional improvement in nAMD. RESULTS: Between baseline and month 24 (M24), 42.4% of the variability in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was explained by the cumulative effect of the following societal factors: intermittent out-patient follow-up, marital status, daily reading, transportation type, commuting time. No isolated societal factor significantly correlated with ETDRS BCVA severity at M24. A trend to correlation was observed between the EDTRS score at M24 and the SSS (P = 0.076), economic burden (P = 0.075), time between diagnosis and treatment initiation (P = 0.070). A significant correlation was found for the disease burdensome on the patient (P = 0.034) and low vision rehabilitation (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Societal factors could influence functional outcomes in nAMD patients treated with anti-VEGFs. They could contribute to the healing process or sustain disease progression.

High Variation of Intravitreal Injection Rates and Medicare Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Payments per Injection in the United States.

PURPOSE: To estimate geographic variation of intravitreal injection rates and Medicare anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drug costs per injection in aging Americans. DESIGN: Observational cohort study using 2013 Medicare claims database. PARTICIPANTS: United States fee-for-service (FFS) Part B Medicare beneficiaries and their providers. METHODS: Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data furnished by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used to identify all intravitreal injection claims and anti-VEGF drug claims among FFS Medicare beneficiaries in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2013. The rate of FFS Medicare beneficiaries receiving intravitreal injections and the mean Medicare-allowed drug payment per anti-VEGF injection was calculated nationally and for each state. Geographic variations were evaluated by using extremal quotient, coefficient of variation, and systematic component of variance (SCV). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of FFS Medicare Part B beneficiaries receiving intravitreal injections (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code, 67028), nationally and by state; mean Medicare-allowed drug payment per anti-VEGF injection (CPT code, 67028; and treatment-specific J-codes, J0178, J2778, J9035, J3490, and J3590) nationally and by state. RESULTS: In 2013, the rate of FFS Medicare beneficiaries receiving intravitreal injections varied widely by 7-fold across states (range by state, 4 per 1000 [Wyoming]-28 per 1000 [Utah]), averaging 19 per 1000 beneficiaries. The mean SCV was 8.5, confirming high nonrandom geographic variation. There were more than 2.1 million anti-VEGF drug claims, totaling more than $2.3 billion in Medicare payments for anti-VEGF agents in 2013. The mean national Medicare drug payment per anti-VEGF injection varied widely by 6.2-fold across states (range by state, $242 [South Carolina]-$1509 [Maine]), averaging $1078 per injection. Nationally, 94% of injections were office based and 6% were facility based. CONCLUSIONS: High variation was observed in intravitreal injection rates and in Medicare drug payments per anti-VEGF injection across the United States in 2013. Identifying factors that contribute to high variation may help the ophthalmology community to optimize further the delivery and use of anti-VEGF agents.

SOCIETAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEOVASCULAR AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use a cross-sectional prevalence-based health care economic survey to ascertain the annual, incremental, societal ophthalmic costs associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 200) with neovascular age-related macular degeneration were studied. A Control Cohort included patients with good (20/20-20/25) vision, while Study Cohort vision levels included Subcohort 1: 20/30 to 20/50, Subcohort 2: 20/60 to 20/100, Subcohort 3: 20/200 to 20/400, and Subcohort 4: 20/800 to no light perception. An interviewer-administered, standardized, written survey assessed 1) direct ophthalmic medical, 2) direct nonophthalmic medical, 3) direct nonmedical, and 4) indirect medical costs accrued due solely to neovascular age-related macular degeneration. RESULTS: The mean annual societal cost for the Control Cohort was $6,116 and for the Study Cohort averaged $39,910 (P < 0.001). Study Subcohort 1 costs averaged $20,339, while Subcohort 4 costs averaged $82,984. Direct ophthalmic medical costs comprised 17.9% of Study Cohort societal ophthalmic costs, versus 74.1% of Control Cohort societal ophthalmic costs (P < 0.001) and 10.4% of 20/800 to no light perception subcohort costs. Direct nonmedical costs, primarily caregiver, comprised 67.1% of Study Cohort societal ophthalmic costs, versus 21.3% ($1,302/$6,116) of Control Cohort costs (P < 0.001) and 74.1% of 20/800 to no light perception subcohort costs. CONCLUSION: Total societal ophthalmic costs associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration dramatically increase as vision in the better-seeing eye decreases.

[Economic Short-Term Cost Model for Stereotactic Radiotherapy of Neovascular AMD]. / Ökonomisches Kostenmodell zur Radiotherapie der neovaskulären AMD.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic radiation therapy (Oraya, OT) is available as a second line therapy for patients who, despite intensive anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular AMD, do not show an improvement in CNV. As OT is expensive (5,308 €), the short term economics for starting this therapy were investigated. METHODS: A short-term cost model was set up in MS Excel with a two year time horizon. On the basis of the data of the randomised, controlled INTREPID pivotal trial and current treatment practice in Germany, the costs were compared of conventional anti-VEGF therapy, with or without a single OT treatment. Patients with an active lesion after initial anti-VEGF therapy and a maximum lesion diameter ≤ 4 mm were included. Modeled cost components/aspects were direct savings from injection number, control follow-up examinations and aids, as well as anti-VEGF switches. Costs for Germany were employed and a univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to address the existing uncertainty. RESULTS: For the patients with a maximum AMD lesion diameter ≤ 4 mm and a macula volume > 7.4 mm(3), the INTREPID trial showed a mean reduction of 3.68 intravitreal injections for 16 Gy radiation versus sham over a time period of 2 years. These 3.68 IVM result in ~ 4,500 € direct cost savings. Moreover, due to the higher response rate with 16 Gy radiation, the number of follow-up visits and aids can be reduced, which results in savings between 207 € and 1,224 € over 2 years. After radiation, fewer anti-VEGF switches for low or non-responders are expected, which is modeled to result in ~ 1.7 fewer injections over 2 years. Due to overall fewer injections, fewer endophthalmitis cases would be expected. However, endophthalmitis and microvascular abnormalities, which can be observed in a few cases, are associated with low or non-quantifiable costs in this cost-cost comparison model. In summary, cost reductions of between 6,400 and 8,500 € are predicted in the model over two years, which have to be compared to the costs of a single application of OT. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term economic analysis shows that anti-VEGF therapy combined with OT results in savings above the costs for OT itself over a 2 year time horizon. Overall, the approach gives potential cost reductions, if the appropriate indication is followed.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab for newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration. METHODS: Using a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedule, and the medical literature. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: Compared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2 357/QALY. Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab, meaning it was more costly and less effective. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be ≥2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by 1 category (e.g., from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but every patient receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Even after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.

Costs of newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration among medicare beneficiaries, 2004-2008.

PURPOSE: To examine associations between newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration and direct medical costs. METHODS: This retrospective observational study matched 23,133 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with neovascular age-related macular degeneration between 2004 and 2008 with a control group of 92,532 beneficiaries on the basis of age, sex, and race. The index date for each case-control set corresponded to the first diagnosis for the case. Main outcome measures were total costs per patient and age-related macular degeneration-related costs per case 1 year before and after the index date. RESULTS: Mean cost per case in the year after diagnosis was $12,422, $4,884 higher than the year before diagnosis. Postindex costs were 41% higher for cases than controls after adjustment for preindex costs and comorbid conditions. Age-related macular degeneration-related costs represented 27% of total costs among cases in the postindex period and were 50% higher for patients diagnosed in 2008 than in 2004. This increase was attributable primarily to the introduction of intravitreous injections of vascular endothelial growth factor antagonists. Intravitreous injections averaged $203 for patients diagnosed in 2004 and $2,749 for patients diagnosed in 2008. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed neovascular age-related macular degeneration was associated with a substantial increase in total medical costs. Costs increased over time, reflecting growing use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies.

Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab intravitreal injections to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Multicenter, noninferiority factorial trial with equal allocation to groups. The noninferiority limit was 3.5 letters. This trial is registered (ISRCTN92166560). PARTICIPANTS: People >50 years of age with untreated nAMD in the study eye who read ≥ 25 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart. METHODS: We randomized participants to 4 groups: ranibizumab or bevacizumab, given either every month (continuous) or as needed (discontinuous), with monthly review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is at 2 years; this paper reports a prespecified interim analysis at 1 year. The primary efficacy and safety outcome measures are distance visual acuity and arteriothrombotic events or heart failure. Other outcome measures are health-related quality of life, contrast sensitivity, near visual acuity, reading index, lesion morphology, serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels, and costs. RESULTS: Between March 27, 2008 and October 15, 2010, we randomized and treated 610 participants. One year after randomization, the comparison between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive (bevacizumab minus ranibizumab -1.99 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.04 to 0.06). Discontinuous treatment was equivalent to continuous treatment (discontinuous minus continuous -0.35 letters; 95% CI, -2.40 to 1.70). Foveal total thickness did not differ by drug, but was 9% less with continuous treatment (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.005). Fewer participants receiving bevacizumab had an arteriothrombotic event or heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.07; P = 0.03). There was no difference between drugs in the proportion experiencing a serious systemic adverse event (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.27; P = 0.25). Serum VEGF was lower with bevacizumab (GMR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.54; P<0.0001) and higher with discontinuous treatment (GMR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42; P = 0.004). Continuous and discontinuous treatment costs were £9656 and £6398 per patient per year for ranibizumab and £1654 and £1509 for bevacizumab; bevacizumab was less costly for both treatment regimens (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The comparison of visual acuity at 1 year between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive. Visual acuities with continuous and discontinuous treatment were equivalent. Other outcomes are consistent with the drugs and treatment regimens having similar efficacy and safety. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosures may be found after the references.

Provider, patient and public benefits from a NICE appraisal of bevacizumab (Avastin).

There are several good reasons for the UK Department of Health to recommend the appraisal of bevacizumab for the treatment of eye conditions by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. These reasons will extend to other drugs when similar situations arise in the future.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of VEGF-Inhibitor Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

PURPOSE: To perform a societal cost-benefit analysis comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin), ranibizumab (Lucentis), and aflibercept (Eylea) monotherapies for treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: Center for Value-Based Medicine using published clinical trial and Medicare data. PATIENT POPULATION: 168,400 estimated 2018 U.S. patients with new-onset NVAMD. Procedure(s): cost-benefit analysis using 2018 U.S. real dollars. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: 11-year direct ophthalmic medical costs expended for bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies were compared with ophthalmic and nonophthalmic direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect medical (productivity) costs saved by the therapies. RESULTS: Bevacizumab monotherapy had an individual, 11-year $14,772 treatment cost and net $357,680 societal return (11-year 2,421% return on investment [ROI]). Ranibizumab therapy cost $106,582 and returned $265,870 to society (249% ROI), whereas aflibercept treatment cost $61,811 and returned $310,611 to society (503% ROI). The 2018 NVAMD overall treatment cohort, 11-year net societal gain was $28.5 billion to patients and insurers, with $24.2 billion (84.9%) coming from bevacizumab therapy, $0.7 billion (2.5%) from ranibizumab therapy, and $3.6 billion (12.6%) from aflibercept therapy. Substituting bevacizumab for ranibizumab and aflibercept in the 2018 new-onset NVAMD patients would save an estimated $1.343 billion over 11 years. Vascular endothelial growth factor-inhibitor (VEGF-I) therapy in 2018 should contribute $12.2 billion to the Gross Domestic Product over 11 years. Late treatment would decrease this by 78% to $2.7 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal NVAMD bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept monotherapies accrue considerable financial, ROIs to patients and insurers as they increase national wealth.

Value of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Therapy for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To use discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to estimate the value creation associated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) genetic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). DESIGN: Economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing serial intravitreal anti-VEGF injections in 1 eye for nAMD. METHODS: Discounted cash flow modeling with scenario analysis was used to derive a present value for a 1-time alternative treatment to lifelong anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed on the basis of patient age at time of first injection and frequency interval of intravitreal injection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Present values of DCF and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Discounted cash flow analysis of intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment for nAMD resulted in a base-case valuation of $208 420.61, $219 093.31, and $17 379.41 for a 1-time alternative treatment to aflibercept, ranibizumab, and bevacizumab, respectively. This figure covaried significantly with anti-VEGF agent according to the patient age at first injection ($78 323.19-$292 449.87) and frequency of injections ($148 422.91-$388 096.81). In addition, for bevacizumab, variability was driven by the hypothetical degree of clinical superiority of 1-time therapy to repeated intravitreal injections due to reduction in adverse events ($17 379.41-$18 250.79) or reduction in direct or indirect costs associated with age-related macular degeneration ($17 379.41-$657 406.55). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGF gene therapy approaches can create significantly different value propositions based on the agent modeled, patient age at first injection, frequency of injections, and clinical profile of the medication. Although the use of aflibercept or ranibizumab as a comparative cost metric is logical from a bioequivalence perspective, the disparity in medication costs should not be the primary value driver in applied models. Instead, bevacizumab should be the base case ($17 379.41), with additional value driven from an improvement in quality of life through clinical superiority. A reduction in direct and indirect costs can be used to approximate the value from maintained visual acuity, which is elaborated in the DCF analysis approach described in this article. This model can serve as a basis for assessing the price ceiling of myriad gene therapy approaches. Given the high present values for these therapeutics, innovative costing and reimbursement mechanisms should be further explored, with contingencies for sustained efficacy.

Social Cost of Blindness Due to AMD and Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States in 2020.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To estimate the social cost of blindness due to wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in the United States in 2020. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Excess costs that occur because of blindness were estimated as the difference in costs in blind versus non-blind individuals. Per-patient costs were aggregated using the number of cases of blindness due to wAMD, DME, and PDR projected in 2020. RESULTS: Associated annual excess direct costs, indirect costs, and quality-adjusted life year loss per blind individual were $4,944, $54,614, and 0.214, respectively. Combining estimates with 246,423 projected cases of blindness due to wAMD, DME, and PDR translated to total societal costs of $20 billion in 2020, estimated to triple by 2050. CONCLUSION: Excess social costs associated with blindness in individuals with wAMD, DME, and PDR are substantial, with more than half of the burden attributed to indirect costs. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51:S6-S14.].

Economic Value of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Patients With Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

Importance: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is a breakthrough treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), the most common cause of blindness in western countries. Anti-VEGF treatment prevents vision loss and has been shown to produce vision gains lasting as long as 5 years. Although this treatment is costly, the benefits associated with vision gains are large. Objective: To estimate the economic value of benefits, costs for patients with wAMD, and societal value in the United States generated from vision improvement associated with anti-VEGF treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used data from the published literature to simulate vision outcomes for a cohort of 168 820 patients with wAMD aged 65 years or older and to translate them into economic variables. Data were collected and analyzed from March 2018 to November 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included patient benefits, costs, and societal value. Each outcome was estimated for a newly diagnosed cohort and the full population across 5 years, with a focus on year 3 as the primary outcome because data beyond that point may be less representative of the general population. Drug costs were the weighted mean across anti-VEGF therapies. Two current treatment scenarios were considered: less frequent injections (mean [SD], 8.2 [1.6] injections annually) and more frequent injections (mean [range], 10.5 [6.8-13.1] injections annually). The 2 treatment innovation scenarios, improved adherence and best case, had the same vision outcomes as the current treatment scenarios had but included more patients treated from higher initiation and lower discontinuation. Results: The study population included 168 820 patients aged 65 years at the time of diagnosis with wAMD. The underlying clinical trials that were used to parameterize the model did not stratify visual acuity outcomes or treatment frequency by sex; therefore, the model parameters could not be stratified by sex. The current treatment scenario of less frequent injections generated $1.1 billion for the full population in year 1 and $5.1 billion in year 3, whereas the scenario of more frequent injections generated $1.6 billion (year 1) and $8.2 billion (year 3). Three-year benefits ranged from $7.3 billion to $11.4 billion in the improved adherence scenario and from $9.7 billion to $15.0 billion if 100% of the patients initiated anti-VEGF treatment and the discontinuation rates were 6% per year or equivalent to clinical trial discontinuation (best-case scenario). Societal value (patient benefits net of treatment cost) ranged from $0.9 billion to $3.0 billion across 3 years in the current treatment scenarios and from $0.9 billion to $4.3 billion in the treatment innovation scenarios. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that improved vision associated with anti-VEGF treatment may provide economic value to patients and society if the outcomes match published outcomes data used in these analyses; however, future innovations that increase treatment utilization may result in added economic benefit.

Cost-Utility Analysis of VEGF Inhibitors for Treating Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: To perform 11- and 2-year health care sector (ophthalmic) and societal cost perspective reference case, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. METHODS: The authors performed 11-year and 2-year ophthalmic and societal cost perspective, cost-utility analyses comparing bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept monotherapies for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD). We employed patient utilities, bilateral outcomes, 2018 U.S. dollars, vision-related mortality, a Medicare fee schedule, and CATT (Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments) study and VIEW (VEGF Trap-Eye: Investigation of Efficacy and Safety in Wet AMD) trial. Cochrane data were also used. SETTING: Center for Value-Based Medicine. Patient/study population: patients with NVAMD. INTERVENTION: Cost-utility analyses using published data. Data-modeled 10-year vision outcomes were modeled forward to year 11. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: These included cost-utility ratios (CURs), costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. $100,00/QALY was considered the US cost-effectiveness upper limit. RESULTS: Bevacizumab and ranibizumab each conferred an 11-year, 1.339 QALY gain versus observation. Aflibercept conferred a 1.380 QALY gain. Aflibercept conferred greater QALY gain for less cost than ranibizumab but was not cost-effective compared to bevacizumab ($1,151,451/QALY incremental CUR). The average ophthalmic cost perspective CUR for bevacizumab was $11,033/QALY, $79,600/QALY for ranibizumab, and $44,801/QALY for aflibercept. Eleven-year therapies saved a 1.0 year-of-life loss without treatment from the 11.0-year life expectancy. Early treatment was 138%-149% more cost-effective than late treatment. Two-year therapy prevented a 1-month-of-life loss, and revealed bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept conferred 0.141, 0.141, and 0.164 QALY gains, respectively, with corresponding average CURs of $40,371/QALY, $335,726/QALY, and $168,006/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From an ophthalmic (medical) cost perspective, bevacizumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept NVAMD monotherapies were all cost-effective over 11 years, with bevacizumab 6.21× more cost-effective than ranibizumab and 3.06× more cost-effective than aflibercept. Two-year modeling revealed bevacizumab was cost-effective, whereas ranibizumab and aflibercept were not. Early treatment was critical for obtaining optimal vision and cost-effectiveness, as is long-term follow-up and adherence to treatment.

Eliminating Visual Acuity and Dilated Fundus Examinations Improves Cost Efficiency of Performing Optical Coherence Tomogrpahy-Guided Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: The clinic efficiency and cost savings achieved by eliminating formal visual acuity (VA) and dilated fundus examinations (DFEs) were assessed for established patients receiving optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Comparative cost analysis. METHODS: Two different treatment models were evaluated. The first model included patients undergoing routine VA assessment, DFEs, OCT imaging, and intravitreal injections. The second model eliminated the routine VA assessment and DFE while using OCT imaging through an undilated pupil followed by the intravitreal injection. The 2 models incorporated both bevacizumab and aflibercept. The number of patients per clinic day, the cost per visit, and the daily revenues were compared between the 2 models. RESULTS: Optimized schedules with and without VA assessments and DFEs allowed for 48 and 96 patients to be injected per day, respectively. Excluding drug costs, the cost per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $39.33 and $22.63, respectively. Including the drug costs, the costs per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $85.55 and $68.85 for bevacizumab and $1787.58 and $17770.88 for aflibercept, respectively. Once the reimbursements for each visit type were included, the clinics that eliminated the VA and DFEs were more cost efficient. CONCLUSION: Eliminating both VA assessments and DFEs for patients undergoing OCT-guided retreatment with intravitreal injections resulted in decreased exposure times between patients and clinic staff, decreased cost per encounter, and increased patient volumes per clinic day, resulting in improved clinic efficiency and safety while seeing more patients in a clinic day.

Socio-economic status and outcomes for patients with age-related macular degeneration.

OBJECTIVES: To explore disparities in severity of baseline disease, treatment completion, and treatment outcomes among patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) receiving anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy by socio-economic status (SES) and distance from home to hospital. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Data from clinic records of 756 wet AMD patients receiving treatment for wet AMD with aflibercept between May 2013 and Jan 2017 were obtained. Area SES (using Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015) and distance from hospital (dichotomized > = 10 vs. <10 km) were derived from anonymized postcodes. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify associations of area deprivation and distance from hospital at baseline-with visual acuity (VA) at baseline-treatment completion, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Living in the most deprived compared with less deprived areas was associated with a significantly higher risk of presenting with severe reduction in VA (OR = 3.59; 95% CI = 1.39-9.27; P = .01). This association was maintained after adjustment for age, gender, and distance from hospital. On univariate analysis, delayed treatment completion was more likely in those living in most deprived areas (OR = 2.80; 95% CI = 1.21-6.47; P = .04), though this association was attenuated after adjustment for age, gender, and distance from hospital. No association was observed between SES and treatment outcomes or between distance from hospital and baseline VA, treatment completion or treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: This study found poorer baseline VA among people with wet AMD from more deprived areas. This work suggests a need for earlier identification of AMD among more deprived populations.

A systematic review on the quality, validity and usefulness of current cost-effectiveness studies for treatments of neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

PURPOSE: Ophthalmologists increasingly depend on new drugs to advance their treatment options. These options are limited by restraints on reimbursements for new and expensive drugs. These restraints are put in place through health policy decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). Cost-effectiveness analyses need to be valid and of good quality to support correct decisions to create new treatment opportunities. In this study, we report the quality, validity and usefulness of CEAs for therapies for nAMD. METHODS: A systematic review in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane was performed to include CEAs. Quality and validity assessment was based on current general quality criteria and on elements that are specific to the field of ophthalmology. RESULTS: Forty-eight CEAs were included in the review. Forty-four CEAs did not meet four basic model quality and validity criteria specific to CEAs in the field of ophthalmology (both eyes analysed instead of one; a time horizon extending beyond 4 years; extrapolating VA and treatment intervals beyond trial data realistically; and including the costs of low-vision). Four CEAs aligned with the quality and validity criteria. In two of these CEAs bevacizumab as-needed (PRN) was more cost-effective than bevacizumab monthly; aflibercept (VIEW); or ranibizumab monthly or PRN. In two CEAs, ranibizumab (PRN or treat and extent) was dominant over aflibercept. In two other CEAs, aflibercept was either more cost-effective or dominant over ranibizumab monthly or PRN. CONCLUSION: Two of the CEAs of sufficient quality and validity show that bevacizumab PRN is the most cost-effective treatment. Comparing ranibizumab and aflibercept, either treatment can be more cost-effective depending on the assumptions used for drug prices and treatment frequencies. The majority of the published CEAs are of insufficient quality and validity. They wrongly inform decision-makers at the cost of opportunities for ophthalmologists to treat patients. As such, they may negatively influence overall patient outcomes and societal costs. For future ophthalmic treatments, CEAs need to be improved and only published when they are of sufficient quality and validity.

The economic and humanistic burden of patients in receipt of current available therapies for nAMD.

AIM: To determine the economic and humanistic burden of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in a cohort of patients treated with anti-VEGF in Europe and the US. PATIENTS & METHODS: 79 respondents from the EU and 63 from the US with a self-reported diagnosis of nAMD and in current receipt of treatment, as reported in an international, general population survey, were compared with non-nAMD controls. RESULTS: Anti-VEGF-treated nAMD patients in the EU had a greater utilization of healthcare resources, poorer quality of life and greater overall activity impairment versus non-nAMD controls. In the US cohort, treated nAMD patients had significantly greater resource utilization for ophthalmologist visits only. CONCLUSION: The burden of care associated with nAMD on EU and US healthcare systems, and on patients who are in receipt of nAMD therapy, is significant and likely to be unsustainable.

Estimating Medicare and Patient Savings From the Use of Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Exudative Age-related Macular Degeneration.

PURPOSE: The Medicare cost savings from the use of bevacizumab in the United States for the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were estimated by replacing the use of bevacizumab with ranibizumab and aflibercept. DESIGN: Retrospective trend study. METHODS: Main outcome measures were spending by Medicare as tracked by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for intravitreal injections (67028) and treatment-specific J-codes (J0178, J2778, J9035, J3490, and J3590) for inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor. These claims were identified from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services among fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries from 2012 to 2015. The 2008 claims were acquired from the 100% fee-for-service (FFS) Part B Medicare Claims File. RESULTS: The use of bevacizumab from 2008 to 2015 resulted in an estimated savings of $17.3 billion, which corresponded to a $13.8 billion savings to Medicare and a $3.5 billion savings to patients. This amount underestimated the actual cost savings to Medicare providers, since approximately 30% of Medicare-eligible recipients received care within Medicare Advantage plans and were not included in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The cost savings from the use of bevacizumab from 2008 to 2015 for Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing treatment for exudative AMD was estimated at $17.3 billion. Additional savings over the $17.3 billion would have accrued from the use of bevacizumab if diagnostic categories such as diabetic macular edema and retinal vein occlusion were included in this study.

Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Ranibizumab for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of vision loss in the United States. The most severe vision loss occurs in patients with neovascular AMD, known as wet AMD (wAMD). The most commonly used antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies approved by the FDA to treat patients with wAMD are ranibizumab, 0.5 mg administered by intravitreal injection once a month (approximately every 28 days), and intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI), 2 mg every 4 weeks (monthly) for the first 12 weeks (3 months), followed by IAI 2 mg once every 8 weeks (2 months). Given the similar efficacy and safety profiles between IAI and ranibizumab, their associated costs and comparative cost-effectiveness are key factors in determining which one represents a more rational investment of scarce health care resources to help address the increasing cost of prescription drugs in the United States, a source of concern for patients, prescribers, payers, and policymakers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses (IAI 2q8) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly (Rq4) and pro re nata (PRN) in the treatment of patients with wAMD from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs of treating patients with wAMD with IAI 2q8, Rq4, and ranibizumab PRN. The model considered changes in best-corrected visual acuity in the affected and fellow eyes over time, and the effect of blindness on mortality. Efficacy for IAI 2q8 and Rq4 was from VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 studies and from the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials for ranibizumab PRN. Utilities and costs (in 2016 U.S. dollars) were from published literature. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, IAI 2q8 provided equal health benefits with Rq4 (5.44 QALYs) at a lower total cost ($33,745 vs. $48,031) as a result of fewer injections. IAI 2q8 yielded slightly greater QALYs versus ranibizumab PRN (5.44 vs. 5.40) at a slightly higher cost ($33,745 vs. $33,652), with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $2,583. Results were sensitive to variations in drug acquisition costs and number of injections of both drugs and the baseline age of the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: IAI 2q8 can be cost saving and cost-effective compared with Rq4 and ranibizumab PRN for the treatment of wAMD in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of aflibercept. Hernandez, Lanitis, Cele, and Toro-Diaz are employed by Evidera, which received funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals to conduct this study. Gibson and Kuznik are employed by and own stock in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.